Why was America attacked on September 11, 2001?

[Procrustes Stretched]

Not bad, not bad at all but how does it explain the 'why' on being attacked?

btw. Clarke and others who were there refute your bs line about Clinton declaring victory after launchong cruise missles.

Why did you have to go wingnutty?

As a distraction, and a warning to stay out of the affairs of Afghanistan. Remember, for almost a decade they had done attack after attack (WTC 1993, Khobar Towers, Somalia, USS Cole), and saw pretty much no response other then a few cruise missiles. I honestly think that is all they expected to get in return.

And notice I did not say that is how *I* believed, but how they saw it. Remember that they had been dismissive many times of the US, seeing it as a country that only launches a few missiles in an empty gesture when attacked. We were not talking my own perceptions, but theirs.

And sorry, I in no way see this as "nutty", nor even particularly "right wing". If you are going to be getting this and dissecting it politically, this is pretty much at an end.

Ahh, I see. But you did single out Clinton. Reagan and US Marines in Lebanon. GHWB cpuld be looked at both ways.
They all contributed to a view you push.

Sure they underestimated the response, but no one could have predicted the actual collapse of the Twin Towers, just read up on the architect response and the truther debunkers on Popular Mechanics.

I believe they were as suprised as anyone when the collapse came and there is evidence for this. So they took advantage of weaknesses in policy...big deal. Known knowns, known unknowns...

Otherwise the basics of your anaysis has been Dante's. View all along. Dante was a huge fan of Rumsfeld before he supported an occupatipn for democratic nation building at the point of a gun: Paul Bremer

Beyond the basics, you simplify the expected response ... I think they expected a more muscled response, but seen us run away in Lebanon and elsewhere...even though we went into Kuwait and Iraq. They expected (like most) Afghanistan to be too big a hurdle. They bet wrong

 

[Mushroom]

Ahh, I see. But you did single out Clinton. Reagan and US Marines in Lebanon. GHWB cpuld be looked at both ways.
They all contributed to a view you push.

No, you do not see. You are trying to look for some kind of political agenda from me, and it is not there. So you really are jumping at shadows.

President Reagan is not relevant, since he was known for putting boots on the ground, and he did not fire any cruise missiles.

For President Bush 41, same thing. He was more likely to send in boots and pilots, not cruise missiles. His only use was during the Gulf War, a total of 288. He never used them in Panama, nor in former Yugoslavia.

President Clinton had a reputation for using cruise missiles constantly. 23 in June 1993, 13 in September 1995, 44 in September 1996, 75 in August 1998 (these were the strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan). And finally 40 in December 1998 and 218 in Spring 1999. And we are not talking about what *I* thought of this usage, but how it was perceived by many in the region.

President Bush 43 was to new in office, and seen as young and inexperienced. They probably thought he would simply be a continuation of what President Clinton had done.

Remember, many saw the US as a decadent nation, that would never risk their own boys in combat. They thought they had taught us the folly of fighting them man to man in Somalia, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. And that our only response would be more cruise missiles, maybe some air strikes. I honestly do not think they thought a multinational force led by the US would invade and put an end to their reign.

Otherwise the basics of your anaysis has been Dante's. View all along. Dante was a huge fan of Rumsfeld before he supported an occupatipn for democratic nation building at the point of a gun: Paul Bremer

Beyond the basics, you simplify the expected response ... I think they expected a more muscled response, but seen us run away in Lebanon and elsewhere...even though we went into Kuwait and Iraq. They expected (like most) Afghanistan to be too big a hurdle. They bet wrong

Personally, I think in many areas of the world Democracy is overrated. There are simply to many cultural differences to ever make it work.

Personally, I think a better government would have been a Constitutional Parliamentary Monarchy, with the return of the Barakzai Dynasty. The dynasty was popular with most of the Afghans, and had reigned over the nation since 1823.

And while I am sure that Lebanon had a bit to do with it, at that incident they also had their barracks blown up and lost a huge percent of the boots on the ground (1st Battalion 8th Marine Regiment essentially ceased to exist after that, having over 2/3 of their members killed and most of the rest injured).

But much more recently they saw what happened in Somalia, which was really a wash militarily, but a huge loss propaganda wise. It was easy for many to accept the destruction of a Marine Infantry Battalion and the withdrawal. It was harder to accept that 160 of what is claimed to be the best fighters in the world had over 40% casualties (over 10% killed), and the loss of 2 helicopters to illiterate villagers with WWII era weapons.

With just those few losses the US ran away.

Remember this is not about what I may or may not think at all, but their perception of what the US was like at the beginning of the new millennium.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=41892]Mushroom[/MENTION] Lebanon and Reagan...something bin laden knew all too well

"...the death toll was 241 American servicemen: 220 Marines, 18 sailors and three soldiers, making this incident the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since World War II's Battle of Iwo Jima, the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States military since the first day of the Vietnam War's Tet Offensive, and the deadliest single attack on Americans overseas since World War II."

"U.S. President Ronald Reagan called the attack a "despicable act"[47] and pledged to keep a military force in Lebanon." -- "Eventually, it became evident that the U.S. would launch no serious and immediate retaliatory attack for the Beirut Marine barracks bombing beyond naval barrages and air strikes..."

1983 Beirut barracks bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think you conflate the Taliban and al qaeda. It's easy to do. See it all the time. Bin laden had contempt for us military forces as well as the us government and it's citizens.

The Taliban were the people in charge of Afghanistan and al qeada were guests

How the US was view in 2001 has everything to do with things going back to Reagan and Afghan war at that time, as well as subsequent actions or inactions in the mideast.

Remember, we allowed Saddam to keep his best troops intact. Field Officers on the ground in parts of Iraq where the elite Guard were, were shocked that Stormin' Norman was holding a press conference and celebrating 'victory' of sorts as US crack troops and armored were ordered to stand down. ..as they watched the Guard slither away.. bin laden saw that too as did that fuck Taliban leader, Omar

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Air strikes, not cruise missles. Not a huge distinction as things go

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=41892]Mushroom[/MENTION] The US is not founded on popular democracy. Madison and Hamilton, and others who won the arguments of the day abhored that notion. Representative democracy is what we ended up with as a model to build a republic. All cultures and societies differ and how they would view or use democracy should be left to them. Shit, even the early Christian Church knew that one and used it when pushing people into Christian models

 

[Mushroom]

[MENTION=41892]
Mushroom[/MENTION] Lebanon and Reagan...something bin laden knew all too well

Trust me, I know it well also. I was in boot camp that day, and a buddy of mine was in the unit that 1/8 relieved.

[MENTION=41892]
I think you conflate the Taliban and al qaeda. It's easy to do. See it all the time. Bin laden had contempt for us military forces as well as the us government and it's citizens.

No, I know full well the differences.

However, AQ was effectively operating as the intelligence and special operations arm of the Taliban. Think of it as the Taliban as the Soviets, and AQ as their KGB. They were 2 separate organizations, but working towards a common goal.

In fact, it was al-Qaeda who trained the 55th Arab Brigade for the Taliban, a group of hard liner foreigners who fought for the Taliban in their war with the Northern Alliance.

 

[Mushroom]

[MENTION=41892]Mushroom[/MENTION] The US is not founded on popular democracy. Madison and Hamilton, and others who won the arguments of the day abhored that notion. Representative democracy is what we ended up with as a model to build a republic. All cultures and societies differ and how they would view or use democracy should be left to them. Shit, even the early Christian Church knew that one and used it when pushing people into Christian models

Oh I am well aware of that, we are a Representative Republic.

And it was based in many ways off of the Presbyterian Church.

 

[gipper]

Ahh, I see. But you did single out Clinton. Reagan and US Marines in Lebanon. GHWB cpuld be looked at both ways.
They all contributed to a view you push.

No, you do not see. You are trying to look for some kind of political agenda from me, and it is not there. So you really are jumping at shadows.

President Reagan is not relevant, since he was known for putting boots on the ground, and he did not fire any cruise missiles.

For President Bush 41, same thing. He was more likely to send in boots and pilots, not cruise missiles. His only use was during the Gulf War, a total of 288. He never used them in Panama, nor in former Yugoslavia.

President Clinton had a reputation for using cruise missiles constantly. 23 in June 1993, 13 in September 1995, 44 in September 1996, 75 in August 1998 (these were the strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan). And finally 40 in December 1998 and 218 in Spring 1999. And we are not talking about what *I* thought of this usage, but how it was perceived by many in the region.

President Bush 43 was to new in office, and seen as young and inexperienced. They probably thought he would simply be a continuation of what President Clinton had done.

Remember, many saw the US as a decadent nation, that would never risk their own boys in combat. They thought they had taught us the folly of fighting them man to man in Somalia, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. And that our only response would be more cruise missiles, maybe some air strikes. I honestly do not think they thought a multinational force led by the US would invade and put an end to their reign.

Otherwise the basics of your anaysis has been Dante's. View all along. Dante was a huge fan of Rumsfeld before he supported an occupatipn for democratic nation building at the point of a gun: Paul Bremer

Beyond the basics, you simplify the expected response ... I think they expected a more muscled response, but seen us run away in Lebanon and elsewhere...even though we went into Kuwait and Iraq. They expected (like most) Afghanistan to be too big a hurdle. They bet wrong

Personally, I think in many areas of the world Democracy is overrated. There are simply to many cultural differences to ever make it work.

Personally, I think a better government would have been a Constitutional Parliamentary Monarchy, with the return of the Barakzai Dynasty. The dynasty was popular with most of the Afghans, and had reigned over the nation since 1823.

And while I am sure that Lebanon had a bit to do with it, at that incident they also had their barracks blown up and lost a huge percent of the boots on the ground (1st Battalion 8th Marine Regiment essentially ceased to exist after that, having over 2/3 of their members killed and most of the rest injured).

But much more recently they saw what happened in Somalia, which was really a wash militarily, but a huge loss propaganda wise. It was easy for many to accept the destruction of a Marine Infantry Battalion and the withdrawal. It was harder to accept that 160 of what is claimed to be the best fighters in the world had over 40% casualties (over 10% killed), and the loss of 2 helicopters to illiterate villagers with WWII era weapons.

With just those few losses the US ran away.

Remember this is not about what I may or may not think at all, but their perception of what the US was like at the beginning of the new millennium.

All the failed foreign interventions, with there consequent death and destruction, should lead one to conclude a policy of non-intervention is best. But the chances of that happening are about zero, with the flawed and corrupt omnipresent American government.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=41892]Mushroom[/MENTION]

[MENTION=41892]
Mushroom[/MENTION] Lebanon and Reagan...something bin laden knew all too well

Trust me, I know it well also. I was in boot camp that day, and a buddy of mine was in the unit that 1/8 relieved.

[MENTION=41892]
I think you conflate the Taliban and al qaeda. It's easy to do. See it all the time. Bin laden had contempt for us military forces as well as the us government and it's citizens.

No, I know full well the differences.

However, AQ was effectively operating as the intelligence and special operations arm of the Taliban. Think of it as the Taliban as the Soviets, and AQ as their KGB. They were 2 separate organizations, but working towards a common goal.

In fact, it was al-Qaeda who trained the 55th Arab Brigade for the Taliban, a group of hard liner foreigners who fought for the Taliban in their war with the Northern Alliance.

I think you are making. Al qaeda out to be more powerful in Afghanistan than they actually were its a simplistic view that fits a simplistic narrative, but make no mistake about it -- the Taliban was in control.

The US even asked Omar to turn. Bin laden over. Was not gonna happen, but the acknowledgement was there.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=41892]Mushroom[/MENTION] The US is not founded on popular democracy. Madison and Hamilton, and others who won the arguments of the day abhored that notion. Representative democracy is what we ended up with as a model to build a republic. All cultures and societies differ and how they would view or use democracy should be left to them. Shit, even the early Christian Church knew that one and used it when pushing people into Christian models

Oh I am well aware of that, we are a Representative Republic.

And it was based in many ways off of the Presbyterian Church.

Republicanism predates Christianity and far outdates christian sects like the Presbs.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Ahh, I see. But you did single out Clinton. Reagan and US Marines in Lebanon. GHWB cpuld be looked at both ways.
They all contributed to a view you push.

No, you do not see. You are trying to look for some kind of political agenda from me, and it is not there. So you really are jumping at shadows.

President Reagan is not relevant, since he was known for putting boots on the ground, and he did not fire any cruise missiles.

For President Bush 41, same thing. He was more likely to send in boots and pilots, not cruise missiles. His only use was during the Gulf War, a total of 288. He never used them in Panama, nor in former Yugoslavia.

President Clinton had a reputation for using cruise missiles constantly. 23 in June 1993, 13 in September 1995, 44 in September 1996, 75 in August 1998 (these were the strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan). And finally 40 in December 1998 and 218 in Spring 1999. And we are not talking about what *I* thought of this usage, but how it was perceived by many in the region.

President Bush 43 was to new in office, and seen as young and inexperienced. They probably thought he would simply be a continuation of what President Clinton had done.

Remember, many saw the US as a decadent nation, that would never risk their own boys in combat. They thought they had taught us the folly of fighting them man to man in Somalia, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. And that our only response would be more cruise missiles, maybe some air strikes. I honestly do not think they thought a multinational force led by the US would invade and put an end to their reign.

Otherwise the basics of your anaysis has been Dante's. View all along. Dante was a huge fan of Rumsfeld before he supported an occupatipn for democratic nation building at the point of a gun: Paul Bremer

Beyond the basics, you simplify the expected response ... I think they expected a more muscled response, but seen us run away in Lebanon and elsewhere...even though we went into Kuwait and Iraq. They expected (like most) Afghanistan to be too big a hurdle. They bet wrong

Personally, I think in many areas of the world Democracy is overrated. There are simply to many cultural differences to ever make it work.

Personally, I think a better government would have been a Constitutional Parliamentary Monarchy, with the return of the Barakzai Dynasty. The dynasty was popular with most of the Afghans, and had reigned over the nation since 1823.

And while I am sure that Lebanon had a bit to do with it, at that incident they also had their barracks blown up and lost a huge percent of the boots on the ground (1st Battalion 8th Marine Regiment essentially ceased to exist after that, having over 2/3 of their members killed and most of the rest injured).

But much more recently they saw what happened in Somalia, which was really a wash militarily, but a huge loss propaganda wise. It was easy for many to accept the destruction of a Marine Infantry Battalion and the withdrawal. It was harder to accept that 160 of what is claimed to be the best fighters in the world had over 40% casualties (over 10% killed), and the loss of 2 helicopters to illiterate villagers with WWII era weapons.

With just those few losses the US ran away.

Remember this is not about what I may or may not think at all, but their perception of what the US was like at the beginning of the new millennium.

All the failed foreign interventions, with there consequent death and destruction, should lead one to conclude a policy of non-intervention is best. But the chances of that happening are about zero, with the flawed and corrupt omnipresent American government.

[MENTION=27454]gipper[/MENTION]
In a perfect world non-intervention would be in everyones interest, and you would not be posting shit online.

 

[Mushroom]

I think you are making. Al qaeda out to be more powerful in Afghanistan than they actually were its a simplistic view that fits a simplistic narrative, but make no mistake about it -- the Taliban was in control.

The US even asked Omar to turn. Bin laden over. Was not gonna happen, but the acknowledgement was there.

And of that I do not deny. And I never said that AQ was anything but effectively the intelligence and special ops arm of the Taliban, think of them as "Defense Contractors" if it makes you feel better.

The Taliban was a very regionalized force, where as AQ was really a multinational force. Because most of them were foreigners they were no real threat to the Taliban, and brought to the table a great many skills and abilities that they lacked themselves. This for example is why the 55th Arab Brigade was turned over to them to be trained. Most Arabs do not have a great opinion of Afghans, and AQ was primarily made up of Arabs so this only made sense.

I am not sure why you are trying to read my posts and put almost an exact opposite spin on them from what I am really saying, and it is getting rather annoying to be honest. I say A, you say I said B, I then have to steer you back to what A means, you insist I am still saying A is B.

 

[Mushroom]

All the failed foreign interventions, with there consequent death and destruction, should lead one to conclude a policy of non-intervention is best. But the chances of that happening are about zero, with the flawed and corrupt omnipresent American government.

Oh yes. The Napoleonic Wars, World War I, World War II, Cambodia, Iran-Iraq, Darfur, Somalia, etc, etc, etc. Isolationism has been such a great thing for the world, we simply must have more of it!

The only thing I have seen about isolationism is that it creates some disgustingly large death counts.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=41892]Mushroom[/MENTION] I am not trying to give your posts a meaning. I am merely looking to clarify meanings. I did say I basically agree with your analysis

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

All the failed foreign interventions, with there consequent death and destruction, should lead one to conclude a policy of non-intervention is best. But the chances of that happening are about zero, with the flawed and corrupt omnipresent American government.

Oh yes. The Napoleonic Wars, World War I, World War II, Cambodia, Iran-Iraq, Darfur, Somalia, etc, etc, etc. Isolationism has been such a great thing for the world, we simply must have more of it!

The only thing I have seen about isolationism is that it creates some disgustingly large death counts.

 

[TNHarley]

dante is smart. more than not anyways lol
idk why he has got to be such a megalomaniac asshole

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

because he can?

 

[freedombecki]

@Mushroom The US is not founded on popular democracy. Madison and Hamilton, and others who won the arguments of the day abhored that notion. Representative democracy is what we ended up with as a model to build a republic. All cultures and societies differ and how they would view or use democracy should be left to them. Shit, even the early Christian Church knew that one and used it when pushing people into Christian models

Oh I am well aware of that, we are a Representative Republic.

And it was based in many ways off of the Presbyterian Church.

Republicanism predates Christianity and far outdates christian sects like the Presbs.

The only minister at the time who signed the Declaration of Independence was a Presbyterian. His name was John Witherspoon. While the Congress itself decided on two houses--one for the man on the street, and one for states' influence, Presbyterian orderliness was the preferred form followed by the founders.

Mushroom knows his stuff, Mr. Dante.

 

[KissMy]

Why was America attacked on September 11, 2001?

What were the reasons given and what are your thoughts on why a bunch of foreigners decided to attack America.?

It is agreed that al qaeda started to take credit for attacks America starting in 1992. We can go back and ask why America was being attacked overseas by Muslim extremists.

Context has a funny way of making commonly accepted myths and beliefs seem like quaint delusions.



Two decades ago it all started. I wonder how many people know the full context of it all

they were angry because we set up shop in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia .

That is part of the al qaeda OBL line. If we go with OBL, where did we ever get he wanted to attack us because of our freedoms?

LK said "because of their freedoms" not our freedoms.

because of their freedoms

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Oh I am well aware of that, we are a Representative Republic.

And it was based in many ways off of the Presbyterian Church.

Republicanism predates Christianity and far outdates christian sects like the Presbs.

The only minister at the time who signed the Declaration of Independence was a Presbyterian. His name was John Witherspoon. While the Congress itself decided on two houses--one for the man on the street, and one for states' influence, Presbyterian orderliness was the preferred form followed by the founders.

Mushroom knows his stuff, Mr. Dante.

I would think you'd know better than to confuse the Founders and Framers when daring to lecture Dante.

So the Presb's get credit for exactly what? How many Masons were in the room? How many deists who laughed in the face of Christianity and the Bible?